Method and system for machine-based extraction and interpretation of textual information

ABSTRACT

A method and system of machine-based extraction of information from a text document employ the steps of performing semantic/syntactic analysis for sentences of the document to build semantic-syntactic structures of the sentences; applying production rules to the semantic-syntactic structures to generate a set of logical conclusions about objects of information comprised in the document, wherein the production rules are based on linguistic characteristics and lexical-morphological properties of the semantic-syntactic structures and ontologies of subject matters of the sentences; and using the set of logical conclusions about objects of information comprised in the document to build an ontology-based RDF graph.

CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application claims the benefit of priority to Russian PatentApplication No. 2015103468, filed Feb. 3, 2015; disclosure of which isincorporated herein by reference in its entirety.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to extracting and interpreting informationfrom unstructured natural language texts. More specifically, theinvention relates to the field of machine extraction and interpretationof information in text documents.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Large volumes of unstructured natural language information/data in anelectronic format have become more readily available especially on theInternet. Such unstructured natural language information containsvarious types of textual information, such as natural language text,numbers and data, for example. Machine-based extraction andinterpretation of that information is complicated by ambiguity, thevariety of real world objects, their properties and connections betweenthose real world objects, as well as by imprecision and variation oflanguage forms and expression. Moreover, machine interpretation ofspeech in audio and video files is also often desirable.

Due to presence of homonyms and homographs in natural languages,existing computer program products (i.e., application programs) formachine interpretation of information in text documents oftenincorrectly represent actual meanings of linguistic portions of thedocuments.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

A method of extracting information as pertinent to a data mining systemis an integral part of a universal text analysis technology and its keyfeature—the ability to perform complete syntactic-semantic analysis ofan input text. The method involves processing the text and generating acollection of syntactic-semantic dependency trees. Thesyntactic-semantic dependency trees are generated by a parser during theanalysis of the text. One syntactic-semantic tree corresponds to asentence in the input text. Textual contents of the input text documentpresented as syntactic-semantic dependency trees are then processed andoutput in the form of Resource Description Framework (RDF) graphs usingthe computer language OWL.

More specifically, a given input text document is first analyzed by aparser. That analysis results in a collection of syntactic-semanticdependency-based parse trees with nodes and edges of each tree beingaugmented with diverse grammatical and semantic information. The parsetree forest is then used as an input for a production system ofinformation extraction rules. The application of the informationextraction rules results in the formation of an RDF graph of theanalyzed text consistent with a domain ontology.

The availability of the system to analyze syntactic and semanticstructure of a text and method of the present invention allows one toextract facts as well as entities from the text. Fact extraction rulesthat are applied to the syntactic-semantic trees tend to be laconic yethighly efficient, easily covering most natural language expressions.Also, the present system and method show little dependence on aparticular language. Since the parse trees contain language-independentdata (like semantic roles or universal (language independent) semanticclasses), many extraction rules are universal and can be used foranalysis of texts in different languages.

The present system and method of extracting information is not limitedto rule-based extraction, because the syntactic and semantic analysisthat precedes the extraction is not based on a set of rules. Theanalysis performed by the parser of the present invention can be definedas model-based: it rests upon a multilevel model of natural languagecreated by linguists and then corpus-trained. Thus, the present methodis characterized as hybrid, it being model-based at the first(preparatory) stage and rule-based at the second.

Techniques for machine-based interpretation of information in textdocuments are disclosed.

Logical conclusions for sentences of a text document are formed andverified using linguistic characteristics and lexical-morphologicalproperties of the semantic/syntactic structures and trees thereof. Dataderived from the logical conclusions is used to increase correctness anddepths of interpretation of the information and may be included insearchable ontologies of subject matters of the information for furtherreference.

Various other aspects and embodiments of the disclosure are described infurther detail below. It has been contemplated that features of oneembodiment of the disclosure may be incorporated in other embodimentsthereof without further recitation.

The Summary is neither intended nor should be construed as beingrepresentative of the full extent and scope of the present disclosure.All objects, features and advantages of the present disclosure willbecome apparent in the following detailed written description and inconjunction with the accompanying drawings.

The novel features believed being characteristic of the description areset forth in the appended claims.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1A is a block diagram illustrating a method of the presentinvention;

FIG. 1B is a block diagram illustrating a method of producing universalsemantic structures from documents according to an embodiment of thepresent invention;

FIG. 1C is a block diagram illustrating applying production rules to asequence of semantic structures;

FIG. 2A is an illustration of linguistic descriptions according to anembodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 2B is an example of a lexical-morphological structure of a sentenceaccording to an embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 3 is an example of morphological descriptions according to anembodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 4 is an example of syntactic descriptions according to anembodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 5 is an example of syntactic descriptions according to anembodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 6 is an example of lexical descriptions according to an embodimentof the present invention;

FIG. 7 is a block diagram illustrating a sequence of data structuresaccording to an embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 8 is an illustration of a graph of generalized constituents of asentence in the English language according to an embodiment of thepresent invention;

FIG. 9 is an illustration is a syntactic structure of the sentence fromFIG. 8 according to an embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 10 is an illustration is a semantic structure of the sentence fromFIG. 8 according to an embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 11 is a schematic illustration of types of statements according toan embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 12 is a schematic illustration of a method of extractinginformation according to an embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 13 is an illustration of a system according to an embodiment of thepresent invention.

To facilitate understanding, identical numerals may be used in thedrawings to designate, where possible, substantially identical elementsthat are common to the figures, except that alphanumerical extensionsand/or suffixes may be added, when appropriate, to differentiate suchelements.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

Objects, features and advantages of the present disclosure are discussedbelow in reference to machine-based (i.e., computerized) interpretationof textual information (i.e., information contained in text documents)available in an electronic form in one of natural, or source, languages.It has been contemplated that at least portions of the presentdisclosure may also be utilized for analysis of other types of documents(e.g., documents containing alpha-numerical data, multi-languagedocuments, etc.).

The output (or the aimed result) of the extraction mechanism accordingto the present invention is an RDF graph. The concept of an RDF(Resource Definition Framework) is to assign each individual informationobject a unique identifier and store the information about it in theform of SPO triples. “S” stands for subject and contains the identifierof the corresponding object, “P” stands for predicate and identifiessome property of the object, “O” stands for object and stores the valueof that property of the object. This value can be either a primitivedata type (string, number, Boolean value) or an identifier of anotherobject.

All the RDF data is consistent with an OWL ontology which is predefinedand static. Information about situations and events is modelled in a waythat is ideologically similar to that proposed by the W3C consortium formodelling N-ary relations. The consistency of the extracted informationwith the domain model is a built-in feature of the system. It is securedautomatically, firstly, due to the extraction rules syntax and,secondly, by validation procedures that prevent generation ofontologically incorrect data.

The present system and method of extracting information uses as itsinput the already analyzed by syntactic parser text in the form ofcollection of syntactic-semantic trees. The collection of thesyntactic-semantic trees is the result of the deep syntactic-semanticanalysis of the source text. Each such corresponds to one sentence ofthe text. The syntactic-semantic trees are generated by a parser whichperform the analysis of the text in according with the method and systemdescribed in U.S. Pat. No. 8,078,450, which is incorporated herein byreference in its entirety. Each tree corresponding to a semanticstructure has nodes corresponding to the words of the source text.

Referring not to FIG. 1A, illustrated there is a sequence of steps 100performed by the system, according to which at step 110 the textdocument is supplied into the system. At step 120 tools ofsemantic/syntactic analysis are applied to transform the text documentinto a collection (130) of independent from a natural language of thedocument semantic-syntactic structures and trees thereof selectivelycorresponding to sentences of the document. Then, at step 140,production rules are applied to the collection of semantic-syntactictrees to generate a set of statements about the objects. The informationabout those objects is contained in the source text. The generated setof statements must be non-contradictory, therefore, a special algorithmfor generate that set of statements has been developed while thereferenced set of statements has been named a “bag of statements”. The“bag of statements” (150) is shown in FIG. 1A. The generated “bag ofstatements” then serves as an input for construction of RDF graph atstep 160. The information extraction method result is the constructedRDF graph (170).

FIG. 1B illustrates the portion of the inventive method pertaining tosemantic-syntactic analysis 120. That analysis 120 is performed by theparser and results in a construction of a deep language-independentstructure that can be applicable in different applications, such as, forexample, machine translations applications. An information extractionsystem also utilizes a deep language-independent structure, which makesthe rules more generalized and universal. Still, the syntax of the rulesallows the system to utilize surface properties of the syntactic tree.

Referring to FIG. 1B, a sources document is provided as input. If thesource document is in an image format (such as .pdf, or .tiff, forexample), then any non-text document should be OCR-ed or converted intoa text document using another conversion method.

At step 114 lexical-morphological analysis for each sentence 112 of thesource document is performed to identify morphological meanings of thewords in the sentences—each sentence is divided into lexical elementafter which their lemmas (initial or main forms) are determined, as wellas the corresponding variants of grammatical meaning. Usually aplurality of variants is identifies for each such element as aconsequence of homonymy and of a coincidence of the word forms ofdifferent grammatical meanings A schematic example of the result of step114 for the sentence <<This boy is smart, he'll succeed in life>> (

) is shows in FIG. 2B

Lexical-morphological analysis of source sentence is performed forconstructing lexical-morphological structure of source sentence is thenperformed. Then a syntactic analysis is performed that is of a two-stageanalysis, comprising a Rough syntactic analysis of source sentence forconstructing a graph of generalized constituents at step 115 whichactivates syntactic models of one or more potential lexical meanings ofa specific word and establishing all potential surface connections inthe sentence. That step results in constructing a data structure calleda graph of generalized constituents. Then after step 116 of precisesyntactic analysis on the graph of generalized constituents constructingat least one syntactic tree structure constructing a languageindependent semantic structure takes place at step 117. That process isdescribed in detail in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/548,214,filed on Oct. 10, 2006, issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,078,450, incorporatedherein by referenced in its entirety. In a general case a plurality ofsuch structures is formed, which takes place mainly because of thepresence of different variants for lexical choices. Each variant of thesyntactic structure is characterized by its own weight. The structuresare sorted from more probable to less probable

Finally, at step 117 a transition from the selected best syntactic treeto a language independent semantic structure 118 takes place, the nodesof the structure 118 are the semantic classes and the connectionsreflect semantic relationships.

A description of a set of the mentioned linguistic descriptions anddetails of the individual stages of the semantic-syntactic analysis isgiven below. FIG. 2A is a chart illustrating the required languagedescriptions (210) according to one of the possible implementations ofthe invention. Language descriptions (210) include morphologicaldescriptions (201), syntactic descriptions (202), lexical descriptions(203) and semantic descriptions (204).

FIG. 2A illustrates language descriptions 210 including morphologicaldescriptions 201, lexical descriptions 203, syntactic descriptions 202,and semantic descriptions 204, and their relationship thereof. Amongthem, the morphological descriptions 201, the lexical descriptions 203,and the syntactic descriptions 202 are language-specific. Each of theselanguage descriptions 210 can be created for each source language, andtaken together, they represent a model of the source language. Thesemantic descriptions 204, however, are language-independent and areused to describe language-independent semantic features of variouslanguages and to construct language-independent semantic structures.

FIG. 3 illustrates exemplary morphological descriptions. The componentsof the morphological descriptions 201 include, but are not limited to,word-inflexion description 310, grammatical system 320 (e.g.,grammemes), and word-formation description 330, among others. Thegrammatical system 320 is a set of grammatical categories, such as,“Part of speech”, “Case”, “Gender”, “Number”, “Person”, “Reflexivity”,“Tense”, “Aspect”, etc., and their meanings, hereafter referred to as“grammemes”, including, for example, Adjective, Noun, Verb, etc.;Nominative, Accusative, Genitive, etc.; Feminine, Masculine, Neuter,etc.; and more.

The word-inflexion description 310 describes how the main word form maychange according to its case, gender, number, tense, etc. and broadlyincludes or describes all possible forms for this word. Theword-formation 330 describes which new words may be generated involvingthis word (for example, there are a lot of compound words in German).The grammemes are units of the grammatical systems 320, the grammemescan be utilized to build the word-inflexion description 310 and theword-formation description 330.

When establishing syntactic relationships for elements of the sourcesentence, a constituent model is used. A constituent may include acontiguous group of words in a sentence and behaves as one entity. Aconstituent has a word at its core and can include child constituents atlower levels. A child constituent is a dependent constituent and may beattached to other constituents (as parent constituents) for building thesyntactic descriptions of the source sentence.

FIG. 4 illustrates exemplary syntactic descriptions. The components ofthe syntactic descriptions 202 may include, but are not limited to,surface models 410, surface slot descriptions 420, referential andstructural control description 430, government and agreement description440, non-tree syntax description 450, and analysis rules 460. Thesyntactic descriptions 202 are used to construct possible syntacticstructures of a source sentence from a given source language, takinginto account free linear word order, non-tree syntactic phenomena (e.g.,coordination, ellipsis, etc.), referential relationships, and otherconsiderations.

The surface models 410 are represented as aggregates of one or moresyntactic forms (“syntforms” 412) in order to describe possiblesyntactic structures of sentences as included in the syntacticdescription 202. In general, the lexical meaning of a language is linkedto their surface (syntactic) models 410, which represent constituentswhich are possible when the lexical meaning functions as a “core” andincludes a set of surface slots of child elements, a description of thelinear order, diatheses, among others.

The surface models 410 as represented by syntforms 412. Each syntform412 may include a certain lexical meaning which functions as a “core”and may further include a set of surface slots 415 of its childconstituents, a linear order description 416, diatheses 417, grammaticalvalues 414, government and agreement descriptions 440, communicativedescriptions 480, among others, in relationship to the core of theconstituent.

The linear order description 416 is represented as linear orderexpressions which are built to express a sequence in which varioussurface slots 415 can occur in the sentence. The linear orderexpressions may include names of variables, names of surface slots,parenthesis, grammemes, ratings, and the “or” operator, etc. Forexample, a linear order description for a simple sentence of “Boys playfootball.” may be represented as “Subject Core Object_Direct”, where“Subject”, “Object_Direct” are names of surface slots 415 correspondingto the word order. Fillers of the surface slots 415 indicated by symbolsof entities of the sentence are present in the same order for theentities in the linear order expressions.

The communicative descriptions 480 describe a word order in the syntform412 from the point of view of communicative acts to be represented ascommunicative order expressions, which are similar to linear orderexpressions. The government and agreement description 440 contains rulesand restrictions on grammatical values of attached constituents whichare used during syntactic analysis.

The non-tree syntax descriptions 450 are related to processing variouslinguistic phenomena, such as, ellipsis and coordination, and are usedin syntactic structures transformations which are generated duringvarious steps of analysis according to embodiments of the invention. Thenon-tree syntax descriptions 450 include ellipsis description 452,coordination description 454, as well as, referential and structuralcontrol description 430, among others.

The analysis rules 460 as a part of the syntactic descriptions 202 mayinclude, but not limited to, semantemes calculating rules 462 andnormalization rules 464. Although analysis rules 460 are used during thestep of semantic analysis, the analysis rules 460 generally describeproperties of a specific language and are related to the syntacticdescriptions 202. The normalization rules 464 are generally used astransformational rules to describe transformations of semanticstructures which may be different in various languages.

FIG. 5 illustrates exemplary semantic descriptions. The components ofthe semantic descriptions 204 are language-independent and may include,but are not limited to, a semantic hierarchy 510, deep slotsdescriptions 520, a system of semantemes 530, and pragmatic descriptions540.

The semantic hierarchy 510 are comprised of semantic notions (semanticentities) and named semantic classes arranged into hierarchicalparent-child relationships similar to a tree. In general, a childsemantic class inherits most properties of its direct parent and allancestral semantic classes. For example, semantic class SUBSTANCE is achild of semantic class ENTITY and the parent of semantic classes GAS,LIQUID, METAL, WOOD_MATERIAL, etc.

Each semantic class in the semantic hierarchy 510 is supplied with adeep model 512. The deep model 512 of the semantic class is a set of thedeep slots 514, which reflect the semantic roles of child constituentsin various sentences with objects of the semantic class as the core of aparent constituent and the possible semantic classes as fillers of deepslots. The deep slots 514 express semantic relationships, including, forexample, “agent”, “addressee”, “instrument”, “quantity”, etc. A childsemantic class inherits and adjusts the deep model 512 of its directparent semantic class

The deep slots descriptions 520 are used to describe the generalproperties of the deep slots 514 and reflect the semantic roles of childconstituents in the deep models 512. The deep slots descriptions 520also contain grammatical and semantic restrictions of the fillers of thedeep slots 514. The properties and restrictions for the deep slots 514and their possible fillers are very similar and often times identicalamong different languages. Thus, the deep slots 514 arelanguage-independent.

The system of semantemes 530 represents a set of semantic categories andsemantemes, which represent the meanings of the semantic categories. Asan example, a semantic category, “DegreeOfComparison”, can be used todescribe the degree of comparison and its semantemes may be, forexample, “Positive”, “ComparativeHigherDegree”,“SuperlativeHighestDegree”, among others. As another example, a semanticcategory, “RelationToReferencePoint”, can be used to describe an orderas before or after a reference point and its semantemes may be,“Previous”, “Subsequent”, respectively, and the order may be spatial ortemporal in a broad sense of the words being analyzed. As yet anotherexample, a semantic category, “EvaluationObjective”, can be used todescribe an objective assessment, such as “Bad”, “Good”, etc.

The systems of semantemes 530 include language-independent semanticattributes which express not only semantic characteristics but alsostylistic, pragmatic and communicative characteristics. Some semantemescan be used to express an atomic meaning which finds a regulargrammatical and/or lexical expression in a language. By their purposeand usage, the system of semantemes 530 may be divided into variouskinds, including, but not limited to, grammatical semantemes 532,lexical semantemes 534, and classifying grammatical (differentiating)semantemes 536.

The grammatical semantemes 532 are used to describe grammaticalproperties of constituents when transforming a syntactic tree into asemantic structure. The lexical semantemes 534 describe specificproperties of objects (for example, “being flat” or “being liquid”) andare used in the deep slot descriptions 520 as restriction for deep slotfillers (for example, for the verbs “face (with)” and “flood”,respectively). The classifying grammatical (differentiating) semantemes536 express the differentiating properties of objects within a singlesemantic class, for example, in the semantic class HAIRDRESSER thesemanteme <<RelatedToMen>> is assigned to the lexical meaning “barber”,unlike other lexical meanings which also belong to this class, such as“hairdresser”, “hairstylist”, etc.

It should be noted that an important feature of the system and method ofthe present invention resides in employing universal, languageindependent features characterized be features, semanticdescriptions—semantic classes, semantemes and the like in the rules ofextracting the information from a document.

The pragmatic description 540 allows the system to assign acorresponding theme, style or genre to texts and objects of the semantichierarchy 510. For example, “Economic Policy”, “Foreign Policy”,“Justice”, “Legislation”, “Trade”, “Finance”, etc. Pragmatic propertiescan also be expressed by semantemes. For example, pragmatic context maybe taken into consideration during the semantic analysis.

FIG. 6 illustrates exemplary lexical descriptions. The lexicaldescriptions 203 represent a plurality of lexical meanings 612 in aspecific language for each component of a sentence. For each lexicalmeaning 612, a link 602 to its language-independent semantic parent isestablished to indicate the location of a given lexical meaning in thesemantic hierarchy 510.

Each lexical meaning 612 is connected with its deep model 512, which isdescribed in language-independent terms, and surface model 410, which islanguage-specific. Diatheses can be used as the “interface” between thesurface models 410 and the deep models 512 for each lexical meaning 612.One or more diatheses 417 can be assigned to each surface slot 415 ineach syntform 412 of the surface models 410.

While the surface model 410 describes the syntactic roles of surfaceslot fillers, the deep model 512 generally describes their semanticroles. A deep slot description 520 expresses the semantic type of apossible filler, reflects the real-world aspects of the situations, theproperties or attributes of the objects denoted by words of any naturallanguage. Each deep slot description 520 is language-independent sincedifferent languages use the same deep slot to describe similar semanticrelationships or express similar aspects of the situations, and thefillers of the deep slots 514 generally have the same semanticproperties even in different languages. Each lexical meaning 612 of alexical description of a language inherits semantic class from itsparent and adjusts its deep model 512.

FIG. 2B, shows the main steps of the process of semantic-syntacticanalysis. Furthermore, FIG. 7 shows the sequence of data structuresgenerated during such analysis.

Initially, at stage 112 the source sentence of the source language issubjected to Lexical-Morphological Analysis to build theLexical-Morphological Structure 722 of the source sentence. TheLexical-Morphological Structure 722 is the set of all possible pairs of“lexical meaning—grammatical meaning” for each lexical element (word) inthe sentence. An example of such Structure is shown in FIG. 2B

Then the first stage of syntactic analysis is done in theLexical-Morphological Structure—Rough Syntactic Analysis 115 of theSource Sentence to Generate a Graph of Generalized Constituents 732.During Rough Syntactic Analysis 720, for each element of theLexical-Morphological Structure 722, all the possible syntactic modelsfor this lexical value are applied and checked to find all the potentialsyntactic links in the sentence, which is expressed in the graph ofgeneralized constituents 732.

The graph of generalized constituents 732 is an acyclic graph in whichthe nodes are generalized (meaning that they store all the variants)lexical values for words in the sentence, and the branches are surface(syntactic) slots expressing various types of relationships between thecombined lexical values. All possible surface syntactic models areactivated for each element of the lexical-morphological structure of thesentence as a potential core for the constituents. Then all the possibleconstituents are prepared and generalized into a graph of generalizedconstituents 732. Correspondingly, all the possible syntactic models andsyntactic structures for the source sentence 212 are examined and agraph of generalized constituents 732 based on a set of generalizedconstituents is constructed as a result. The graph of generalizedconstituents 732 at the surface model level reflects all the potentiallinks between words of the source sentence 212. Because the number ofvariations of a syntactic breakdown can be large in the general case,the graph of generalized constituents 732 is excessive and has a greatnumber of variations—both for selecting the lexical value for the vertexand for the surface slots for the graph branches.

The graph of generalized constituents 732 is initially constructed as atree, from the leaf nodes to the root (from bottom to top). Constituentsare produced from bottom to top by adding child constituents to parentconstituents by filling surface slots 415 of the parent constituents inorder to cover all the initial lexical units of the source sentence 212.

The root of the tree, which is the graph's 732 main node, usuallyrepresents a predicate. During this process, the tree usually becomes agraph because the lower-level constituents (leaves) may be included invarious higher-level constituents (root). Some constituents that areconstructed for the same constituents of the lexical-morphologicalstructure may be later generalized in order to produce generalizedconstituents. Constituents are generalized based on lexical values 612or grammatical values 414, such as those based on the same parts ofspeech. FIG. 8 shows a schematic example of a graph of generalizedconstituent for the previously referenced sentence <<This boy is smart,he'll succeed in life>> (

).

Precise syntactic analysis 116 is performed to separate the syntactictree 742 from the graph 732 of generalized constituents. One or moresyntactic trees are constructed and for each of them an integral ratingis computed based on the use of a set of a priori and calculatedratings; The tree with the best rating is selected to build the bestsyntactic structure 746 for the source sentence. The syntactic trees aregenerated as a process of advancing and checking hypotheses about apossible syntactic structure for a sentence, wherein hypotheses aboutthe structure of parts of the sentence are generated as part of thehypothesis about the structure of the entire sentence.

During the conversion from the chosen tree to the syntactic structure746, non-tree links are established. If non-tree links cannot beestablished, then the next highest-ranked syntactic tree is selected andan attempt is made to use it to establish non-tree links. The result ofthe precise analysis is the best syntactic structure 746 for thesentence being analyzed.

In stage 117, there is a transition to a language-independent semanticstructure 218 that expresses the meaning of the sentence in universallanguage-independent concepts. The language-independent semanticstructure of the sentence is represented as an acyclic graph (trees,supplemented by non-tree links) where each word of a specific languageis replaced with universal (language-independent) semantic entitiescalled semantic classes here. The transition is performed using semanticdescriptions 510 and analysis rules 460, which yield a structure in theform of a tree or a graph with a top node, in which the nodes aresemantic classes that have an attribute set (attributes express thelexical, syntactic, and semantic properties of specific words in thesource sentence) and the arcs are deep (semantic) relationships betweenthe words (nodes) they connect.

Construction of a language semantic structure 117 ends at step 118 ofconstructing the semantic structure. FIG. 9 shows an example of thesyntactic structure of the referenced English language sentence <<Thisboy is smart, he'll succeed in life>> (

), and FIG. 10 shows the corresponding semantic structure.

An annotated RDF graph is generated at the very final stage of theinformation extraction process, while a more complex structure to storeinformation is used during the process. This structure can be describedas a set of noncontradictory statements about information objects andtheir properties, called a “bag of statements”.

The above-referenced annotated RDF graph can also be viewed as a bag ofstatements, if each SPO triple and each link from an object to a segmentof text is considered a statement about that object. But, there exists adifference between the temporary information storage structure (theinner structure) and the final output in the form of an RDF graph. Themain distinction is that the statements from the inner structure can beused to create functional dependencies, i.e. some statements may dependon the presence of other properties and/or dependences. For instance, aset of values of a certain object's property may contain a set of valuesof some other property of a different object. If the set of values ofthe second object is changed, the first object's property changes aswell. Such statements (which use functional dependencies) will behereinafter referred to as dynamic statements. Another difference of theinner structure is that it may contain some auxiliary statements that donot comply with the final annotated RDF graph structure and are usedonly during the extraction process.

Here is the list of the possible statement types:

1. Cumulativity. Statements can be added to but not removed from a bag.

2. Consistency. All the statements in a bag are non-contradictory toeach other.

3. Consistency with ontology. A bag of statement can anytime beconverted into an annotated RDF graph consistent with certain ontology.

4. Transactionality. Statements are added in groups, and if anystatement of a group contradicts other statements from the bag, theaddition of the whole group is cancelled.

Here is the list of statement types:

1. Existence Statements

Existence statements proclaim the existence of information objects andassign unique identifiers to them.

2. Class Membership Statements

Statements that attribute objects to classes in the ontology. OWL allowsus to attribute a single object to several classes, so there can be morethan one class membership statement in the bag. The only restriction isthat the classes should be consistent with each other, i.e. there shouldnot be a DisjointWith statement blocking the combination of classes. Thesystem checks for disjoint every time statements are added to the bagand prevents inconsistencies. Class membership statements can bedynamic: an object is attributed to the same set of classes as someother object.

3. Property Statements

Statements that define properties of an information object. In aproperty statement a set of values of an object's property includes someparticular value. To comply with the RDF standard it can be either anidentifier of a different object or a primitive data type (a string, anumber or a Boolean value). In the disclosed system parse tree nodeidentifiers are used as property values (an additional primitive datatype). Properties of this sort are only used during the extractionprocess but do not appear in the final RDF graph.

Property statements can be dynamic. The complexity of functions thatcalculate values of objects from certain properties of other objects canvary. The simplest example is a function that copies values (i.e. itmakes a statement that a set of values of some property of an objectincludes all the values of some other property of a different object). Acomplex example is a function that generates a normalized string from aset of parse tree nodes. This function relies on the text generationmodule.

Together several statements of some property of an object can createontological inconsistencies. For instance, the number of values mayexceed the maximal cardinality of that property. The module preventssuch inconsistencies by rejecting any group of statements that provokescontradiction.

4. Annotation Statements

Annotation statements connect information objects to parts of theoriginal input text. Annotation coordinates are calculated from thebounds of syntactic-semantic tree nodes. Annotation can cover either asingle node (i.e. a word), or a full subtree of that node.

The bag of statements can contain a number of annotation statements.This means that an annotation of an object can consist of more than onesegment (i. e. be discontinuous).

Annotation statements can be dynamic. For instance, an annotation can becopied from a different object or be generated from a set of values of acertain property if these values contain links to parse tree nodes.

Annotation statements cannot create any contradictions.

5. Anchor Statements

Anchor statements are a very important part of our informationextraction mechanism. Statements of this type link information objectsto parse tree nodes, which enables one to access these objects laterduring the extraction process. The term ‘anchor’ was coined when thesystem was in development so that the links between objects and treenodes could be easily referred to. One object can be anchored to a setof nodes via a number of anchor statements.

The interpreter of the information extraction rules (which are describedbelow) deals with these anchors in a special way: the left-hand side (orcondition side) of a rule in the system can contain the so-called objectconditions, which imply that an information object of a certain typemust be assigned (anchored) to a certain parse tree node for thesuccessful application of the rule. If such an object is found it can beaccessed and modified during the application of the right-hand side ofthe rule.

Object conditions are most widely used in the rules that extract facts,but they are quite useful with named entities as well, since they makeit possible to break the extraction of entities of particular type downto several simple stages. For instance, one rule might only create anunspecified Person entity, while the following ones add properties likefirst name, surname, middle name and alike. It has also become quitecommon to create auxiliary objects which serve as dynamic labels ofparse tree nodes. First some rules create these auxiliary objects andanchor them to certain nodes, and then other rules check for thepresence of these objects with the help of object conditions in theirleft-hand sides.

An anchor statement can attach an anchor not only to the explicitlyindicated node, but also to all its coreferring nodes (via non-treelinks of syntactic-semantic trees). This possibility is cruciallyimportant for the recall of fact extraction, since the extractedinformation objects are automatically linked to coreferents. As a resultthe object appears simultaneously in several contexts and can be used byfact extraction rules.

Anchor statements cannot create any contradictions.

6. Identification Statements

During the extraction process it is often possible to recognizeinformation objects which actually refer to a single real-life entityand should therefore be merged. One obvious example is when a personappears several times in a text. At the first stage each mention of thatperson is extracted as a separate information object, but they can bemerged subsequently if their surnames and names match.

Two objects can be merged into one via identification statements. Afterthese statements are added to the bag, all statements about the mergedobjects are reassigned to this newly created composite object.

Identification statements can contradict to other types of statements.For example, classes of two objects can be incompatible with each otheror a value of some property might exceed its maximum cardinalityrestriction that is set in the ontology. There is also a possibility ofother, more complex inconsistencies.

7. Functional Restrictions

In some cases it is convenient to impose a restriction upon a group ofinformation objects. A function that accepts identifiers of informationobjects and some constant values (e.g. identifiers of parse tree nodes)as input and returns a Boolean value may be added. A function must betrue when it is added to the bag. After it has been added no statementthat would make the function false can enter the bag.

FIG. 11 shows schematic diagrams of all statements types used in theinformation extraction process. Diamonds represent information objects(for example, individuals, entities, persons, locations, organizations,facts, etc.), ellipses represent classes (or concepts) and rectangularboxes represent parse tree nodes.

As mentioned above, the statements can be dynamic, i.e. they can dependon other statements. It is important to note that this feature can leadto contradictions caused by the dependent statements rather than thestatement being added at the moment. That fact posed certaindifficulties to the realization of an algorithm that emulates the bag ofstatements. However, all these issues were subsequently addressed.

Most of the consistency checking is performed when statements are addedto the bag. However some tests can only be conducted after theinformation extraction process is over. For instance, it may be unknownwhether some property meets minimum cardinality requirement until allthe rules are executed. After the extraction process is complete andbefore the bag of statements is converted into an annotated RDF graphsome auxiliary information (e.g. auxiliary objects or properties) isfiltered.

Now that the way information is stored during the extraction process isclear, we proceed to the description of the mechanism that implementsthe extraction rules and produces statements on information objects.

Information extraction process is controlled by the production rulesystem. There are two types of rules in the system: parse subtreeinterpretation rules (or simply interpretation rules) and identificationrules. Both types of rules are described further in the disclosure.Since interpretation rules are much more frequent, whenever the exacttype of a rule is not specified, an interpretation type is assumed.

During the development of the extraction mechanism several goals werepursued. In the first place, the intention was to exploit suchadvantages of the production rule systems as modularity and separationof knowledge from the procedure. Secondly, an efficient deterministicinference model is implemented. Speaking in terms of traditionalproduction systems we can define parse tree forest and the bag ofstatements as a knowledge base, while the extraction process itself canbe described as a forward chaining inference process. Generallyspeaking, there is no guarantee that the rule execution will not loop.However, if the cycle occurs in the real rule system that definitelymeans that there is a logical mistake in some rule. Usually, it can beeasily found and corrected, since there is a built-in heuristics in thealgorithm allowing us to detect rules which caused cycles.

Interpretation rules enable to specify fragments of parse trees, whichmust be discovered for certain logical statements to become true. A ruleis basically a production with syntactic-semantic tree patterns in itsleft-hand side and some expressions that make statements on informationobjects in the right-hand side.

Parse tree templates (hereinafter tree templates) are formulas eachindividual element of which checks some property of a tree node (e.g.presence of a certain grammeme or semanteme, belonging to a certainsemantic or lexical class, occupation of a certain deep or surface slotand many other properties available from the parsing results). Apartfrom the basic logical operators (conjunction, disjunction, negation)tree templates allow to check relative position of nodes within a tree.For instance, it is possible to check if a node is in a subtree ofanother node.

In most cases tree templates describe the interconnected segments ofsyntactic-semantic trees (i.e. subtrees). The only exception is aspecial anaphoric condition. This condition allows to search nodes inthe left context of a certain node completely ignoring tree structureand surpassing boundaries of a single sentence. Such rules are used forcoreference resolution, especially in cases of nominal anaphora.

Tree templates can contain conditions that require an information objectto be anchored to a certain node of a parse tree. Such requirementspositive object conditions are called. The rules also support negativeobject conditions that require a node not to have an object of a certaintype attached to it. Object conditions have already been mentioned inthe part about anchor statements.

When a statement is added to the right-hand side of a production, it isoften necessary to refer to the nodes of the subtree that matches thetemplate in the left-hand side and sometimes to the information objectsattached to these nodes. For that purpose names (or variables) forseparate parts of tree templates are introduced. If a certain subtreematches a template, its nodes can be accessed via the variables assignedto the template parts. These variables can be used in the right-handside of a production to make statements on objects. In some cases theycan also be accessed in the left-hand side (in order to create a complexcondition that checks for certain dependence between several treenodes). A variable can be either a set variable or a unique one. A setvariable can be associated with several nodes, while a unique variablecan only hold one node as its value.

To access an information object that matched a positive object conditionwe use a special notation “X.o” where X is the name of the uniquevariable assigned to the node at which the condition was introduced. Thevariable X has to be unique since each time we process theobject-condition during the interpretation of the rule we need to knowthe exact tree node the information object must be anchored to.

Identification rules are used to merge (unite) a pair of objects. Anidentification rule is basically a production with object conditions fortwo objects in the left-hand side. If a pair of objects fulfils theseconditions, the objects are merged into one. The right-hand side of anidentification rule is omitted because it is always the same: astatement that the two objects are identical (an identificationstatement).

We use three types of conditions in the identification rules. Conditionsof the first type describe the properties of the objects separately,while those of the second and the third allow to impose restrictions onboth objects simultaneously (first and foremost, the intersection ofvalues of certain properties). Conditions of the first type are writtenin the same syntax as the object conditions in the interpretation rules.Conditions of the second type are formulae with property intersectionstatements as basic element and conjunction and disjunction as logicaloperators. Such formulas can efficiently filter the number ofpotentially identical objects. Conditions of the third type arefunctions written in a JavaScript extension. If such a function ispresent, the rule will only be applied if it returns true.

A significant difference of identification rules from interpretationrules is that the former can operate only with information objects andhave no access to parse tree nodes. We assume that all the informationnecessary for the identification should be stored within the propertiesof objects (including auxiliary properties unavailable to the end user).

An example of an interpretation rule is presented as follows.

A matching of a tree template with a segment of a tree can berepresented as a pair <r, Vr>, where r is the unique identifier of arule and Vr is a set of mappings where

-   -   Each set variable of a rule r is associated with a set of        syntactic-semantic tree nodes.    -   Each unique variable is associated with precisely one node.    -   Each unique variable with a positive object condition holds an        information object.

It is important to point out that finding a matching is a sufficientcondition for the right-hand side of the rule to be converted into a setof statements.

For identification rules a matching is a triple <r,o1,o2>, where r isthe identifier of a rule and o1 and o2 are the information objects.These objects correspond to the first and the second object conditionrespectively. As in the interpretation rules, if there is a specificmatching found for an identification rule, it becomes possible toprocess its right-hand side, i.e. to make an identification statementabout the two objects.

Therefore, turning back to FIG. 1A, the information extraction algorithmhas the following steps:

Preliminary step 120—analyze the input text 100 with the parser to get aforest of syntactic-semantic parse trees. The next steps are shown onFIG. 1C. Step 141—find all the matchings for the interpretation rulesthat do not have object conditions. Add the matchings to the sortedmatch queue. If the queue is empty (step 142), terminate the process. Ifthe queue is not empty—get the highest priority matching from the queueat step 143. Convert the right-hand side of the corresponding rule intoa group of statements. At step 144 the system tries to add thestatements to the bag of statements. If failed, declare matching invalidand go to step 142. If succeeded, initiate new matchings'search at step142. If new matchings are found, add the new matchings to the queue andgo to step 142.

Steps 141 and 145 are performed with the help of a special matchingmechanism. This mechanism at step 141 can retrieve all the matchings forthe interpretation rules without object conditions. It also constantlymonitors the contents of the bag of statements. Every time step 144 isperformed successfully and new statements get into the bag, themechanism takes them into account and, if necessary, generates newmatchings for the rules that do contain object conditions. These newmatchings can be created both for the rules that have already beenmatched before and for those which remained unmatched until that moment.The former occurs when an object condition of a certain rule is matchedby more than one object. In this case each object is matched in aseparate matching. At step 145 not only matching for interpretationrules, but also matching for identification rules are searched.

FIG. 12 schematically illustrates the process of extracting information.The implementation of the matching mechanism is relatively complex. Forinstance, it has a built-in bytecode interpreter for the compiled rules,a system of indexes for the syntactic-semantic trees, a module fortracking changes in the bag of statements and several other features.Full-length description of this mechanism is beyond the scope of thepaper.

It is also important to explain the way the queue of matchings is sortedat step 145. In some cases developers can set the order of rules, i.e.there is partial order over the whole set of rules. Of any two rules onecan be given priority over the other. It means that if both rules areready to be applied, the rule with the higher priority should go first.For convenience reasons we also support group ordering of rules. Ifgroup A was given priority over group B, then each rule belonging togroup A has higher priority than one belonging to group B. Partial orderrelation is transitive. Correctness of partial order is checked everytime a system of rules is compiled. If loops are detected, compilationfails and the user receives an error message. The order of matchings inthe queue is always consistent with the partial order set within asystem of rules.

This approach differs significantly from those with consecutiveexecution of rules, since partial order only determines the priority ofrules and does not prevent repeated execution.

It is easy to see that the described algorithm does not consideralternatives. If a group of statements derived from some matching isinconsistent with the bag of statements in its current state, thematching is simply dismissed. We can afford to use this ‘greedy’principle because the parser performs word-sense disambiguation, so werarely ever have to hypothesize about a node. There are some exceptionslike words unknown to the parser, but for such cases we have specialmethods of dealing with these words and incorporating them in our“greedy” model.

FIG. 13 shows exemplary hardware for implementing the techniques andsystems described herein, in accordance with one implementation of thepresent disclosure. Referring to FIG. 13, the exemplary hardwareincludes at least one processor 1302 coupled to a memory 1304. Theprocessor 1302 may represent one or more processors (e.g.microprocessors), and the memory 1304 may represent random access memory(RAM) devices comprising a main storage of the hardware, as well as anysupplemental levels of memory, e.g., cache memories, non-volatile orback-up memories (e.g. programmable or flash memories), read-onlymemories, etc. In addition, the memory 1304 may be considered to includememory storage physically located elsewhere in the hardware, e.g. anycache memory in the processor 1302 as well as any storage capacity usedas a virtual memory, e.g., as stored on a mass storage device 1310.

The hardware also typically receives a number of inputs and outputs forcommunicating information externally. For interface with a user oroperator, the hardware \ may include one or more user input devices 1306(e.g., a keyboard, a mouse, imaging device, scanner, microphone) and aone or more output devices 1308 (e.g., a Liquid Crystal Display (LCD)panel, a sound playback device (speaker)). To embody the presentinvention, the hardware typically includes at least one screen device.

For additional storage, the hardware may also include one or more massstorage devices 1310, e.g., a floppy or other removable disk drive, ahard disk drive, a Direct Access Storage Device (DASD), an optical drive(e.g. a Compact Disk (CD) drive, a Digital Versatile Disk (DVD) drive)and/or a tape drive, among others. Furthermore, the hardware 1400 mayinclude an interface with one or more networks 1312 (e.g., a local areanetwork (LAN), a wide area network (WAN), a wireless network, and/or theInternet among others) to permit the communication of information withother computers coupled to the networks. It should be appreciated thatthe hardware typically includes suitable analog and/or digitalinterfaces between the processor 1302 and each of the components 1304,1306, 1308, and 1312 as is well known in the art.

The hardware operates under the control of an operating system 1314, andexecutes various computer software applications, components, programs,objects, modules, etc. to implement the techniques described above.Moreover, various applications, components, programs, objects, etc.,collectively indicated by application software 1316 in FIG. 13, may alsoexecute on one or more processors in another computer coupled to thehardware via a network 1312, e.g. in a distributed computingenvironment, whereby the processing required to implement the functionsof a computer program may be allocated to multiple computers over anetwork.

In general, the routines executed to implement the embodiments of theinvention may be implemented as part of an operating system or aspecific application, component, program, object, module or sequence ofinstructions referred to as a “computer program.” A computer programtypically comprises one or more instruction sets at various times invarious memory and storage devices in a computer, and that, when readand executed by one or more processors in a computer, cause the computerto perform operations necessary to execute elements involving thevarious aspects of the invention. Moreover, while the invention has beendescribed in the context of fully functioning computers and computersystems, those skilled in the art will appreciate that the variousembodiments of the invention are capable of being distributed as aprogram product in a variety of forms, and that the invention appliesequally to actually effect the distribution regardless of the particulartype of computer-readable media used. Examples of computer-readablemedia include but are not limited to recordable type media such asvolatile and non-volatile memory devices, floppy and other removabledisks, hard disk drives, optical disks (e.g., Compact Disk Read-OnlyMemory (CD-ROMs), Digital Versatile Disks (DVDs), flash memory, etc.),among others. Another type of distribution may be implemented asInternet downloads.

Aspects of the present disclosure have been described above with respectto techniques for machine interpretation of information in textdocuments. However, it has been contemplated that portions of thisdisclosure may, alternatively or additionally, be implemented asseparate program products or elements of other program products.

All statements, reciting principles, aspects, and embodiments of thedisclosure and specific examples thereof are intended to encompass bothstructural and functional equivalents of the disclosure.

It will be apparent to those skilled in the art that variousmodifications can be made in the devices, methods, and program productsof the present disclosure without departing from the spirit or scope ofthe disclosure. Thus, it is intended that the present disclosureincludes modifications that are within the scope thereof andequivalents.

What is claimed is:
 1. A method comprising: performing, by a processor,semantic/syntactic analysis for sentences of a text document toconstruct semantic-syntactic structures for the sentences; applying, bythe processor, production rules to the semantic-syntactic structures togenerate a set of logical conclusions about information objects in thetext document, wherein the production rules are based on linguisticcharacteristics of the semantic-syntactic structures,lexical-morphological properties of the semantic-syntactic structures,and ontologies of subject matters for the sentences, wherein theproduction rules comprise interpretation rules and identification rules,wherein the interpretation rules specify fragments to be found in thesemantic-syntactic structures, wherein the interpretation rules specifycorresponding logical statements that form the set of logicalconclusions in response to finding the fragments in thesemantic-syntactic structures, and wherein the identification rules areused to merge ones of the information objects; using, by the processor,the set of logical conclusions about the information objects in the textdocument to build an ontology-based Resource Definition Framework (RDF)graph; and storing the ontology-based RDF graph in a storage device andproviding searching of the stored ontology-based RDF graph as aknowledge base reference.
 2. The method of claim 1, wherein performingthe semantic/syntactic analysis further comprises performinglexical-morphological analysis of the text document to construct thesemantic-syntactic structures for the sentences.
 3. The method of claim2, further comprising performing rough syntactic analysis of the textdocument to construct a graph of generalized constituents, wherein thegraph of generalized constituents comprises potential lexical meaningsof words in the sentences and potential syntactic slots expressing typesof relationships between the potential lexical meanings of the words. 4.The method of claim 3, further comprising performing precise syntacticanalysis of the graph of generalized constituents, wherein the graph ofgeneralized constituents comprises syntactic-semantic dependency parsetrees for the sentences, and wherein performing the precise syntacticanalysis comprising identifying ones of the syntactic-semanticdependency parse trees that have highest probabilities of expressingmeanings for the sentences.
 5. The method of claim 4, further comprisingconstructing the semantic-syntactic structures which are languageindependent, wherein the words in the sentences are represented in thesemantic-syntactic structures by sematic classes that are languageindependent, and wherein the semantic classes comprises attributes thatexpress lexical, syntactic, and semantic properties of the words in thesentences.
 6. The method of claim 1, wherein applying the productionrules further comprises identifying matching ones of the interpretationrules, among the production rules, that do not have object conditions,wherein object conditions indicate types of the information objectsassigned to corresponding ones of the interpretation rules forapplication of the corresponding ones of the interpretation rules toportions of syntactic-semantic dependency parse trees for the sentences,and wherein the logical statements are true for the sentences if thefragments are matched with portions of syntactic-semantic dependencyparse trees.
 7. The method of claim 6, further comprising adding thematching ones of the interpretation rules to a sorted matching queue. 8.The method of claim 7, further comprising terminating applying theproduction rules in response to determining that the sorted matchingqueue is empty.
 9. The method of claim 7, further comprising, inresponse to determining that the sorted matching queue is not empty,selecting a highest priority matching from the matchings in the sortedmatching queue to generate the set of logical conclusions from ones ofthe logical statements corresponding to the highest priority matching,and conditionally adding the set of logical conclusions to a bag ofstatements, wherein using the set of logical conclusions to build theontology-based RDF graph comprises converting the bag of statements tothe ontology-based RDF graph.
 10. The method of claim 9, furthercomprising searching for new matchings in response to determining thatconditionally adding the set of logical conclusions to the bag ofstatements is successful.
 11. The method of claim 9, further comprisingdeclaring the set of logical conclusions invalid and terminatingapplying the production rules in response to determining thatconditionally adding the set of logical conclusions to the bag ofstatements fails.
 12. A system comprising: a processor; and a memorystoring instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause theprocessor to: perform semantic/syntactic analysis for sentences of atext document to construct semantic-syntactic structures for thesentences; apply production rules to the semantic-syntactic structuresto generate a set of logical conclusions about information objects inthe text document, wherein the production rules are based on linguisticcharacteristics of the semantic-syntactic structures,lexical-morphological properties of the semantic-syntactic structures,and ontologies of subject matters for the sentences, wherein theproduction rules comprise interpretation rules and identification rules,wherein the interpretation rules specify fragments to be found in thesemantic-syntactic structures, wherein the interpretation rules specifycorresponding logical statements that form the set of logicalconclusions in response to finding the fragments in thesemantic-syntactic structures, and wherein the identification rules areused to merge ones of the information objects; use the set of logicalconclusions about the information objects in the text document to builda Resource Definition Framework (RDF) graph; and store theontology-based RDF graph in a storage device and provide searching ofthe stored ontology-based RDF graph as a knowledge base reference. 13.The system of claim 12, wherein portions of one or more of theperformance of the semantic/syntactic analysis, the application of theproduction rules, or the use of the set of logical conclusions areperformed using the computer language Web Ontology Language (OWL). 14.The system of claim 12, further comprising a database to store thesemantic-syntactic structures.
 15. A non-transitory computer-readablemedium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, causethe processor to: perform, by the processor, semantic/syntactic analysisfor sentences of a text document to construct semantic-syntacticstructures for the sentences; apply, by the processor, production rulesto the semantic-syntactic structures to generate a set of logicalconclusions about information objects in the text document, wherein theproduction rules are based on linguistic characteristics of thesemantic-syntactic structures, lexical-morphological properties of thesemantic-syntactic structures, and ontologies of subject matters for thesentences, wherein the production rules comprise interpretation rulesand identification rules, wherein the interpretation rules specifyfragments to be found in the semantic-syntactic structures, wherein theinterpretation rules specify corresponding logical statements that formthe set of logical conclusions in response to finding the fragments inthe semantic-syntactic structures, and wherein the identification rulesare used to merge ones of the information objects; use, by theprocessor, the set of logical conclusions about the information objectsin the text document to build a Resource Definition Framework (RDF)graph; and store the ontology-based RDF graph in a storage device andprovide searching of the stored ontology-based RDF graph as a knowledgebase reference.
 16. The medium of claim 15, wherein the instructions arefurther to cause the processor to perform portions of one or more of theperformance of the semantic/syntactic analysis, the application of theproduction rules, or the use of the set of logical conclusions using thecomputer language Web Ontology Language (OWL).